Patient Could Not Prove Medical Negligence, Central Delhi District Commission Clears Neera Eye Centre’s Liability

Brief facts of the Case:

Mohd. Ayub (“Complainant”) initially sought treatment at Neera Eye Centre (“Eye Centre”) in August 2012, where he was referred to Dr. Neera Agrawal (“Doctor”) for specialized care. The doctor began treating the complainant's eye condition, prescribing medications and conducting examinations. The complainant contended that the doctor performed a wrongful surgery on his right eye. The complainant asserted that the doctor’s negligence resulted in significant harm and financial losses. As a result, he filed a consumer complaint in the Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) claiming that he suffered pain and distress due to the alleged medical negligence. The complainant sought compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the damages and losses he incurred as a result of the medical treatment.

The doctor denied any wrongdoing and negligence in her treatment of the complainant. She argued that she provided the best available treatment and care to the complainant. She claimed that the complainant's condition required surgical intervention and that the procedure performed was medically justified. She contended that the complainant's health deteriorated despite the treatment, and she was not responsible for the subsequent medical issues.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission noted that there was a lack of specific medical expert opinion or conclusive evidence to establish medical negligence on the part of the doctor. Furthermore, the medical reports issued by Dr. Shroff’s Charity Eye Hospital (marked as Opposite Party 3 in the complaint) did not contain any indications of negligence or wrongful surgery by the doctor. Based on the available evidence and records, the District Commission concluded that the complaint failed to provide sufficient proof of medical negligence by the doctor in performing the surgery.

Resultantly, the complaint was dismissed and each party was directed to bear their own costs.

Case: Mohd. Ayub vs Neera Eye Centre

Case No.: CC/387/2014

Advocate for the Complainant: None

Advocate for the Respondent: None